The Left is Rallying to Take Your Guns Again

[HARK!]

Did you hear about the mass shooting that happened over the weekend in Chicago? I believe around 40 people wounded and 10 killed. It was never reported in the news because it was the product of multiple shootings. Mostly black on black crime.

No. Were any AR-15s used?

Gun Control Myths: The lie that AR-15s are the weapon of choice of Mass Public Shooters

 

[Oompa Loompa]

No. Were any AR-15s used?

Gun Control Myths: The lie that AR-15s are the weapon of choice of Mass Public Shooters

Funny you should ask. But I believe the semi-auto handgun was the primary weapon of choice. One thing I know for certain, absolutely no "assault weapons" were used.

 

[HARK!]

Funny you should ask. But I believe the semi-auto handgun was the primary weapon of choice. One thing I know for certain, absolutely no "assault weapons" were used.

That's a good report.

 

[Larniavc]

These guns are standard issue for many police departments. Are you saying that they are armed to kill lots of people quickly?

That’s what guns are for. I’m surprised this needs to be explained to you. If they could not kill people they would be paperweights.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If others can serve the purposes, then they could be misused as well, and then you'd want to see those also banned.

This is no argument.

The reason why I attempted to educate you...

Thank you for your condescension, but I'm good.

I see that you're looking to find fault with everything here.

No, just with the notion that surrounding ourselves with instruments of death will make us safer, because they have done the opposite.

First, it's that people can misuse a gun, and now you don't agree with the founding document that our laws are based on.

In a Christian forum we should at least agree that only God is holy and Him alone should we worship and His world alone should be reverenced. The founding documents of one secular nation are not holy and not above being questioned.

But here's the thing--you're not the only person that enjoys the freedom we have in this country, and most people aren't willing to throw away their freedom to hope for a little more security.

We have already tried the opposite road to security. We have gone down that road further than any other nation. The result is that we are less secure than any developed nation - all of which have fewer guns per capita. When are we going to learn we are digging ourselves deeper into our graves?

Now you presume people to be liars? Nice.

"Trust but verify" - Ronald Reagan.

 

[Larniavc]

Define "lots of people"....my point exactly.

Here we go again. Define, define, define!

What is so confusing to you that you need common parlance defined? It is simply deflection.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

[citation needed]

I gave it several times already. Since you ignored it before there is no point it giving it again.

Are you calling for a Con Con?

We have amended the Constitution 23 times already without a Con Con. But honestly, I don't expect the 2nd amendment to be repealed in my lifetime. The politicians are too afraid of the NRA. What else can explain the fact that they refuse to pass enhanced background checks and waiting periods and red flag laws, despite the fact that they are overwhelmingly popular?

 

[Larniavc]

List of United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia

Which bit of data in the link you provided contradicts my assertion?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is already illegal for violent criminals to own firearms

I was referring to the fact that if we limit our response to those who have already committed a violent act with firearm then we can do nothing proactively. We are essentially giving a free pass to first-time murderers, which is the majority of murders.

We have herds of feral, man eating, hogs were I live. An AR-15 is an excellent live saving remedy. However, rights are not based on need.

You can apply for a special permit if your job requires that you work among man-eating feral hogs. But there is no reason the 18-year-old kid who shot up Robb Elementary should have ever been allowed to by an AR-15.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That doesn't prove your assertion. Since it seems that you didn't finish reading the question; I'll ask it again.

Can you prove that? When I lived in one big Blue city; I had a face to face conversation with one of my police officials, who told me that most of the murders in that city were being committed by the same people, who murder again and again.

The unnamed police officer you talked to is not here for me to question, so I can't debate him and I won't try. If you follow the news you will see that after every high-profile mass shooting, everyone asks "did he have a criminal history". In most cases the answer is no.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Some people with smaller frames find that handguns are hard to control for self defense because of the kick. However, at times they can handle a rifle with its higher weight, ability to rest the stock against the shoulder to absorb the kick, and smaller caliber (but high velocity due to barrel length). And since they have adjustable stocks they can be tailored to the size of the person a bit better. They also have rails to attach a laser sight, making targeting easier for those old eyes.

And they can penetrate body armor better than handguns, and handle multiple targets in case the frail old woman is facing an armed home invasion.

The cost of making this one frail woman feel safer from home invasion from thugs with body armor is that many more people will die.

 

[ottawak]

Funny you should ask. But I believe the semi-auto handgun was the primary weapon of choice. One thing I know for certain, absolutely no "assault weapons" were used.

So what? Don't you guys care about any gun crimes except those involving AR-15s? It seems to me Oompa, that you at least ought to be concerned about black-on-black shootings even if an "assault weapon" was not involved.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Here we go again. Define, define, define!

What is so confusing to you that you need common parlance defined? It is simply deflection.

Oh, these silly little words with these silly little meanings! You know what? I have this very lovely toaster made by a company called Sig Sauer. It was rather expensive at about $1060. But it has a 15 +1 bread slice capacity. The funny thing is that after the bread is toasted, the toaster ejects the bread at a very high velocity.

My point is that your standard of banning guns is based on what you would consider being "lots of people". I am just asking you to tell me what that means. Meaning, give me a number that defines " a lot" from "not a lot." Because a well-trained person can kill "lots of people" in a barricaded classroom full of kids with only a double-barrel shotgun.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

So what? Don't you guys care about any gun crimes except those involving AR-15s? It seems to me Oompa, that you at least ought to be concerned about black-on-black shootings even if an "assault weapon" was not involved.

Of course we care about all gun crimes. Do you care about black-on-black gun violence? Or only the ones involving white boys in a school full of white kids. Where are all the progressives posting treads addressing the gun violence in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, and St. Luis? You all don't care about black-on-black crime. The Democrat party doesn't care about black-on-black crime until they need our vote.

 

[ottawak]

Of course we care about all gun crimes. Do you care about the black-on-black gun violence? Or only the ones involving white boys in a school full of white kids.

Me? Somebody who has repeatedly tried to steer the conversation in this thread towards the problems of places like Chicago? Me? Somebody who has repeatedly tried to make the point in this thread that guns in the hands of criminal gangsters are more of a problem than pretend army guns in the hands of wanna-be Minute Men? No, you are protesting too much making an accusation like that. It's clear that you are not here to argue honestly. I'm beginning to wonder if you are even actually black.

 

[rambot]

Did you hear about the mass shooting that happened over the weekend in Chicago? I believe around 40 people wounded and 10 killed. It was never reported in the news because it was the product of multiple shootings. Mostly black on black crime.

Sorry.
Mass shooting or multiple shootings?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Don't you guys care about any gun crimes except those involving AR-15s?

Somebody who has repeatedly tried to steer the conversation in this thread towards the problems of places like Chicago?

Make up your mind.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Sorry.
Mass shooting or multiple shootings?

Mass shootings. Meaning, a whole lot of shootings. Not a "mass shooting".

Regardless, does it matter if it was one shooter or not? But again, because it isn't a mass shooting, liberals don't care.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

List of United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia

This is supposed to be evidence that making guns harder to get does not make people safer. It does this, supposedly, by listing cities with high crime rates and noting that they seem to be the cities with the most restrictive gun laws. The facts presented in this "argument" are correct. But the logic used to draw the stated conclusion are flawed.

The reason it is flawed logic is that it assumes that gun laws are the only thing affecting crime rate. In fact the single greatest factor in crime rate is population density. Another big factor is poverty. Yet another factor is diversity. These are the factors that most influence crime rates. To isolate the effect of gun laws on crime rates you have to compare comparable societies with and without restrictive gun laws. When you do that it becomes clear that gun laws are either neutral or somewhat helpful in reducing crime rates - especially gun violence. But my main point is the list of cities ranked by crime rate do not prove the author's point.

 

[ottawak]

Make up your mind.

I have. Those two statements of mine express perfectly my opinion that you care more about the "rights" of wanna-be Minute Men and their pretend army guns than you do about black-on-black gun crime. Your agreement that the big recent shoot -out in Chicago was OK because it didn't involve a pretent army gun was the giveaway.